Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Aliji Momonji & Co vs Lalji Mavji & Ors on 12 July, 1996

Sadbuddhi Brahmesh Wagh And Ors. vs Satish Raghvendra Wagh And Ors. on 28 November, 2003

In support of his contention that the flat purchasers - defendants 9 to 14 had direct interest in the subject matter of dispute and they were interested in defending the validity of the writing dated 1-2-1976, the learned senior counsel sought to place reliance on Seth Fida Hussain v. Fazal Hussain and Ors., ; Canara Bank v. Metalica Industries Ltd. and Aaliji Monoji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji and Ors.,
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. And ... vs Utkal Solvent Extractions (P) Ltd. And ... on 6 May, 2003

In support of his submission, Mr. Mukhopadhyaya also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Aliji Momonji & Co vs. Lalji Mavji and Others . It is observed in this judgment that where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party. In the facts of this case certain portion of the building which was unauthorised was sought to be demolished. The Court observed that "The landlord has a direct and substantial interest in the demised building before the demolition of which notice under Section 351 was issued. In the event of its demolition, his rights would be materially affected. His right, title and interest in the property demised to be tenant or licensee would be in jeopardy. It may be that the construction which is sought to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation was made with or without the consent of the landlord or the Lesser. But the demolition would undoubtedly materially affect the right, title and interest in the property of the landlord. Under those circumstances, the landlord necessarily is a proper party, though the relief is sought for against the Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolition of the building. In this context the question whether the respondent-landlord had only commercial interest in the property would not arise." Mr. Mukhopadhyaya also submitted that on the parity of reasoning if the Commission is satisfied that the grievance of the respondent-claimant and decides to grant compensation, in that event the presence of the petitioners would be absolutely imperative for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the case.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1